Cheneys rip the “collapsing Obama doctrine”

posted at 9:21 am on June 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Call this the great We told you so from the neocons, written by one of the best thinkers of the group. Former VP Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney partner for a broadside against the Obama administration’s confused and drifting foreign policy, especially in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. They write that allies in that region have asked them in dismay to explain what Obama’s strategic plan is, why he’s tossing way hard-fought gains in Iraq, and why all of a sudden he’s playing footsie with Iran:

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, “Can you please explain what your president is doing?” “Why is he walking away?” “Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?” “Why is he abandoning your friends?” “Why is he doing deals with your enemies?”

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

Our president doesn’t seem to. Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.

In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America’s adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.

The impulse to ally with Iran and to essentially flip American policy on its head is a dead giveaway about Obama’s strategic thinking. It’s non-existent. American policy in this region has been entirely reactionary, a game of checkers in a region where everyone else plays three-dimensional chess. The only strategy Obama has is withdrawal, and the White House has so little preparation for the predictable outcomes of that strategy that they grasp at straws when they arise.

Hence, we have the strange sight of an American outreach to Iran to intercede in Iraq when the rest of the Sunni states in the area have aligned with the US precisely because they fear increased Iranian hegemony. We were prepared to bomb Syria with little forethought on the consequences, and now we’re lining up with the state sponsor of Hezbollah to deal with our failure in Iraq — even though Hezbollah is propping up the regime we wanted to bomb last year in Syria. It’s one reaction after another.

On the other hand, the Cheneys are likely whistling into the wind here. There hasn’t been much polling on Iraq, but the PPP poll taken over the weekend shows that the neocon policy is even less popular than Obama’s leadership at the moment. Even with the looming disaster facing Baghdad and by extension American policy, and even with the threat that ISIS represents to the region and eventually to the US directly, only 20% want American troops back in Iraq. The majority want a diplomatic “mobilization” to deal with ISIS, which as I wrote yesterday would look pretty strange, since ISIS is an unapologetic terrorist organization. The American public is as confused as the Obama administration at the moment, and Obama’s leadership will likely keep them that way … as well as everyone else in the world too, especially our allies.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I think many people often are confused by 0′s leadership style. They seem to draw conclusions on him from a norm they have. This it would appear creates a scenario where they think 0 is failing or inept. I think 0 is doing exactly what he set out to do. Flawlessly.

Obama believes he is a genius though, rivaling Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus. In reality I detect more signs of intelligence in my housecats who have taken up a new hobby of growling at cars they see passing as they look out the window.

It is noted well that you don’t refute in the least what’s being said. Now that you’ve stipulated that Cheney’s critique is correct, if moronic comments are all you have to offer, you are invited to shut the f*ck up.

They write that allies in that region have asked them in dismay to explain what Obama’s strategic plan is, why he’s tossing way hard-fought gains in Iraq, and why all of a sudden he’s playing footsie with Iran:

Obama believes he is a genius though, rivaling Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus. In reality I detect more signs of intelligence in my housecats who have taken up a new hobby of growling at cars they see passing as they look out the window.

Withdrawal is just secondary to his real motive. I think Obama is primarily consumed with looking good. His image. He’s going to get us completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan, bring the boys home, not because it’s a good idea, but because it makes him look good. Makes him look like he cares. Obama Cares. What a guy!

The impulse to ally with Iran and to essentially flip American policy on its head is a dead giveaway about Obama’s strategic thinking. It’s non-existent. American policy in this region has been entirely reactionary, a game of checkers in a region where everyone else plays three-dimensional chess. The only strategy Obama has is withdrawal, and the White House has so little preparation for the predictable outcomes of that strategy that they grasp at straws when they arise.

Confusion reigns and fecklessness fills the vacuum. The One’s foreign (and Domestic) policies are so bad that it naturally leads me to the cynical conclusion that, yes, it IS The One’s strategy born of his Leftest/Communist upbringing and True Believer status. His goal: Create global and domestic anarchy (tear down what is) and then rebuild the world/country into a Socialist Utopia. He’s created such a situation in Iraq that it would be pure folly to return in force. But, ‘let them stew in their own juices’ does not a President, make.

It is noted well that you, too, don’t refute in the least what’s being said. Now that you’ve stipulated that Cheney’s critique is correct, if moronic comments are all you have to offer, you are invited to shut the f*ck up.

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, “Can you please explain what your president is doing?” “Why is he walking away?” “Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?” “Why is he abandoning your friends?” “Why is he doing deals with your enemies?”

In order;
1. We can, but you won’t like the explanation.
2. Because he wants the radicals to win while maintaining his rep as the “peace President”.
3. Because he thought the mission was wrong and evil to begin with, and has always wanted it to fail.
4. His “friends” are not our “friends”, and his list includes Iran but not you.
5. See (4) above.

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

We do, but The One and his minions don’t, except insofar as they’re hoping that once al-Qaeda dominates the region, there will be a new, glorious Caliphate run on “proper” enlightened, mystical Eastern principles. It can never be over-emphasized that this is their “dream”, a civilization that rejects logic, technology, and democracy in favor of “feeling”, magical thinking, and autocracy.

The impulse to ally with Iran and to essentially flip American policy on its head is a dead giveaway about Obama’s strategic thinking. It’s non-existent. American policy in this region has been entirely reactionary, a game of checkers in a region where everyone else plays three-dimensional chess. The only strategy Obama has is withdrawal, and the White House has so little preparation for the predictable outcomes of that strategy that they grasp at straws when they arise.

Incorrect. His strategy is entirely consistent with the above assumptions. He wants the other side to win because in his mind, they represent The Good. Not because they are Islam, but because they are primitivist, anti-Western, and violently retributive. They do not merely want to wreck the West, they seek revenge for all the ills they claim it has caused since the battle of Plataea, when the Greeks had the poor manners to defeat the Persians and usher in an era of rationalism instead of “spiritual enlightenment”.

Which is precisely what The One wants, too. As do his like-minded minions. Post-modern neo-primitivists all, they yearn for a world run like ancient Persia, wit themselves as the philosopher-kings. And the power to punish everyone else for all the evils their ancestors supposedly perpetrated. Like… inventing the steam engine, for example.

This is far from an uncommon attitude on the left; it’s what the OWSers were all about at their core, seeking to rule the world according to the tenets of Critical Dance Theory.

But the Occupiers were never running the White House Situation Room. These neo-Platonist Luddites absolutely are.

The moral being, before you give someone the controls, it’s wise to make sure they aren’t determined to run you off a cliff so they can claim “a victory over evil”.

What are you shilling about sockpuppet? obama was left with a stable country with a nationally elected leader and constitution voted on in a national referendum. He not only allowed but supported an uprising in Syria that brought to power, the very forces underrunning Iraq.

Additionally, under Bush and Cheney, our Armed Frces were not subjected to a Rules of Engagement policy based on polls that favored our enemy.

I’ll take Cheney any day over this idiot.

You’re dismissed. Come back when you have a clue what you’re talking about.

Advice? I don’t think he was giving any advice. He was just pointing out the total ineptness of the policies of the present administration and how they’ve been total failures. If you disagree please tell us what he said that was incorrect and point out the successes The Won has achieved. I’m sure we’d all love to hear your opinions.

The American public is as confused as the Obama administration at the moment, and Obama’s leadership will likely keep them that way … as well as everyone else in the world too, especially our allies.

Our allies in the Middle East and elsewhere should just do what ever they want to protect their interest because they cannot count on this most incompetent fool Obama, a very stupid man who should not be trusted with anything…

Israel should bomb Iran nuclear facilities…

Saudi Arabia should give a highly selected and trusted group of rebels in Syria MANPADS to stop Assad air power, a defeat of Assad in Syria is a defeat for Iran and Russia… They should give the rebels in Syria enough arms to fight ISIS terrorist group which they have been already fighting since January of this year where Assad/Iran are doing nothing to ISIS in Syria…

They should do this without even consulting with Obama on this because this most incompetent fool is not worth talking to or getting his stupid opinion on anything…

Although the visuals are strikingly similar the actuality is quite different. I don’t think the North Vietnamese had any aspirations to come to America and blow siht up and kill us after we left. These guys want to establish an Islamic Caliphate, consolidate their power and then start a world wide holy war. That means, by default, that they have to attack and destroy us. This war ain’t over by a long shot no matter what that jackwad in the White House says to the contrary.

It is noted well that you, too, don’t refute in the least what’s being said. Now that you’ve stipulated that Cheney’s critique is correct, if moronic comments are all you have to offer, you are invited to shut the f*ck up.

To be honest, I didn’t read what Cheney said. You know why? Because of this:

“In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more.”

I see the words “Dick” and “Cheney” and know what I’m about to read is coming from a guy who has exactly ZERO credibility on Iraq. He is who we SHOULD NOT BE listening to. Why would we?

Your delusional fantasy that because I didn’t comment on what he said because I believe it is just that: a delusional fantasy (one of many you’ve constructed in your head I’m sure).

I have my own thoughts on the current situation in Iraq, none of which have been influenced by anything that Dick Cheney, a guy who any rational, self-respecting American would give ZERO credibility to when speaking about anything to do with Iraq.

Obama’s foreign policy is easy to understand. It’s just hard to accept.

The foundation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is the premise that the United States has too much influence in the world, and that abdicating that influence is an unqualified good. Their strategy has been, whenever possible, to cede power to others with a secondary objective of making it as hard as possible for subsequent administrations to reverse the situation.

Because Obama’s understanding of how the machinery of power works is facile, he was unable to predict the probable outcomes of his actions. It is harder to give away power than our esteemed president thought it would be. Simply declining to use it doesn’t make it go away.

Still, part of power is the willingness to use it, so perception counts, and in that way the administration is advancing its objective. There are also concrete ways to diminish power, such as reduction of military capacity, dissolution of sovereignty and weakening the rule of law. Obama is doing these things as quickly as he can get away with them.

WTF is that? We already have an embassy in Baghdad and diplomats there. There isn’t much more “mobilization” on the diplomatic side we can do. And as Ed points out in the post, ISIS isn’t one to negotiate anything. They want the whole country under their control. They have shown to what lengths they will go to to achieve these ends, but this administration ignores it. If Jugears let’s Baghdad fall, he needs to be removed from office.

What the US needs to do is drone strikes and fighter surgical strikes on ISIS. I think the US population can get behind at least that.

They write that allies in that region have asked them in dismay to explain what Obama’s strategic plan is, why he’s tossing way hard-fought gains in Iraq, and why all of a sudden he’s playing footsie with Iran:

Dear Liar operates on the principle that the very foundational ideals of the United States of America are wrong “[T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” and that our enemies simply hold a different viewpoint that must be accommodated.

Obama believes he is a genius though, rivaling Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus. In reality I detect more signs of intelligence in my housecats who have taken up a new hobby of growling at cars they see passing as they look out the window.

Unfortunately we have a president who has been told just how much better he is than everyone else without ever having to prove his abilities. I constantly tell my kids that it is one thing to think you are smart, the important part is proving that you are smart through your actions, showing you can make a mistake and apply the lesson(s) learned. He has done nothing to show he is anything more than a demagogue. Yes, he is smart, but not the smartest in the room and he is incredibly intellectually lazy. And that is what makes him dangerous.

Ed –
Just because the Cheneys have some serious effin’ gall – it doesn’t mean you have to.
This like getting an arsonist’s opinion on the ineffectiveness of firefighters.
I know you posses a fair amount of historical literacy.
You don’t have to bend this low to find some red meat for your readers.
Just unreal.

Who’d have thunk that philosophical underpinnings would change one’s conclusions on a matter? Those of us who supported Bush’s war in Iraq continue to see Cheney as a serious and savvy contributor to that effort.

Obama’s failing to make an easy lay-up is not a blemish on the hard work exerted to open the lane for him. Obama’s failures are his own and Cheney’s critique of Obama’s failures is spot-on. If you and your fellow haters would start holding your chosen chief executive responsible for the results of his actions, you might actually see him start to make better decisions. The problem is that you aren’t any smarter than he is, so you don’t get why his best laid plans go all Steinbeck on him.

“I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months.” (March, 2003)
“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” (March, 2003)
I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” (July, 2005)

Poor you.

Yep..Ed’s ‘best thinker’…thinking things.
He has NO credibility. I bet his daughter is/was the only one willing to byline this with him.
Whatever Obama and his policies has failed to fix here, it’s not what he broke.

When a doctor fails to save the life of a gunshot victim…is that death the fault of the doctor? By your reasoning, yes.
Now, maybe in hindsight the doctor could’ve tried a different approach…sure. But the patient likely still would’ve died.
It was a bad wound.

Whatever Obama and his policies has failed to fix here, it’s not what he broke.

verbaluce on June 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM

And therein lies Obama’s (and your) problem. You must take responsibility for a situation to be empowered to fix it. The Obama administration and their supporters remain too stuck on fixing blame to someone (anyone) else to risk the bold steps required to make a difference. As a result, they will be remembered as an ineffective and inconsequential presidency. The good news is that they are setting up the next president for an epic spike over the net, re: Carter/Reagan.

When a doctor fails to save the life of a gunshot victim…is that death the fault of the doctor? By your reasoning, yes.
Now, maybe in hindsight the doctor could’ve tried a different approach…sure. But the patient likely still would’ve died.
It was a bad wound.

verbaluce on June 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Doctor Dog Eater came in, took a look at the victim, pulled a .44 Magnum, and shot 6 ragged holes in him.

The Obama administration and their supporters remain too stuck on fixing blame to someone (anyone) else to risk the bold steps required to make a difference. As a result, they will be remembered as an ineffective and inconsequential presidency.

Yep, ineffective and inconsequential…..aside from totally revamping the direction of our foreign policy, creating the biggest overhaul in health care history, pioneering gay and women’s rights, the biggest energy boom in US history, pioneering environmental research and regulation….and oh yeah, rebounding the US economy out of the economic disaster better than most every economy on earth.

Aside from those piddling things, it’ll be ineffective and inconsequential because……BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BEMGHAZI!!!!

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 18, 2014 at 10:45 AM

March 3, 2007:

Billionaire George Soros has quietly invested $62 million in the purchase of more than 2 million shares of Halliburton, the major government contractor criticized by his own Open Society Institute and the activist group he funds, MoveOn.org.

The holdings were disclosed in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by Soros Fund Management LLC.

Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton.

…another outspoken leftist who had criticized Halliburton was discovered to own stock in the company – filmmaker Michael Moore.

The Obama administration and their supporters remain too stuck on fixing blame to someone (anyone) else to risk the bold steps required to make a difference. As a result, they will be remembered as an ineffective and inconsequential presidency.

Neocons better get wit it quick and realize “enemies on the march” and whatnot doesn’t play.

It’s a meaningless phrase because without the visuals of ISIS rolling through Baghdad. And it has to be Baghdad. Dust towns on outskirts of Tikrit have zero impact unless you served there.

budfox on June 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM

So these stone age savages who fly aircraft full of people into buildings full of people and force secretaries to decide whether they want to end their lives by jumping off a 110 story building or be incinerated at their desks aren’t a sufficient enough threat to get Americans to turn off “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”. We have become that decadent.

wait a sec – do you think there’s actually more of these “things happening around the world” now than there were before obama?

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Of course there are, Cultist. Here’s proof from the Far-Right CNN:

Washington (CNN) – As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.

More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers.

Six of the seven most deadly groups are affiliated with al Qaeda, according to START, and most of the violence was committed in Muslim-majority countries.

The previous record for attacks was set in 2011 with more than 5,000 incidents; for fatalities the previous high was 2007 with more than 12,800 deaths.

When a doctor fails to save the life of a gunshot victim…is that death the fault of the doctor? By your reasoning, yes.
Now, maybe in hindsight the doctor could’ve tried a different approach…sure. But the patient likely still would’ve died.
It was a bad wound.

verbaluce on June 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM

That doctor saved the gunshot victim in 2011.

President Obama travels to Fort Bragg to mark the exit of the last American troops from Iraq, officially ending nearly nine years of war there and leaving Iraq future in the hands of its people.

Now, maybe in hindsight the doctor could’ve tried a different approach…sure. But the patient likely still would’ve died.

verbaluce on June 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM

All this POS had to do was negotiate a SOFA agreement. Instead, he ignored the recommendations of his generals on troop levels and didn’t lift a finger to move the Iraqis any closer to giving immunity to our Military. (As was done in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.)
He deliberately snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory so he could hang it around Bush’s neck. He has no problem in s#!tting on the sacrifices of our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors and no problem s#!tting on them by denying them care when they get home. Obama is subhuman garbage.

I think I’ve figured out what the White House gang’s “doctrine” is. They are totally focused on creating a marxist dictatorship so when anything happens they approach it as something that can be used to accomplish their goals. They just have to figure out how. If you look at it this way the things they do make perfect sense.

aside from totally revamping the direction of our foreign policy, creating the biggest overhaul in health care history, pioneering gay and women’s rights, the biggest energy boom in US history, pioneering environmental research and regulation…
everdiso on June 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM

So your point is that The Won is effectual and consequential when it comes to destroying the very fabric that made America great? Agreed!!

Yep, ineffective and inconsequential…..aside from totally revamping the direction of our foreign policy

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Washington (CNN) – As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.

More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers.

Six of the seven most deadly groups are affiliated with al Qaeda, according to START, and most of the violence was committed in Muslim-majority countries.

The previous record for attacks was set in 2011 with more than 5,000 incidents; for fatalities the previous high was 2007 with more than 12,800 deaths.

O’bama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack

President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.

-snip-

Recently, on Nov. 1 in Green Bay, Wis., Obama said, “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”

-snip-

One day after the Benghazi attack that occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Obama spoke at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sept. 12.

“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,” Obama said in Las Vegas.

On Sept. 13 in Golden, Colo., Obama said, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq — and we did. I said we’d wind down the war in Afghanistan — and we are. And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” He repeated that line again on Sept. 17 in Cincinnati and again that day in Columbus, Ohio.

So Cheney points out the obvious, big deal. This was entirely foreseeable back in 2003 and if Cheney and co. had done a better job during their war the odds of this happening would have been less despite Obummer’s incompetence.

Just because a bunch of people got to vote and get purple thumbs doesn’t mean it was stable country. Shia vs Sunni (and the Kurds), making the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s look like a bump in the road. Obviously funding terrorists in Syria/Libya doesn’t help either. Thanks Obummer.

All this POS had to do was negotiate a SOFA agreement. Instead, he ignored the recommendations of his generals on troop levels and didn’t lift a finger to move the Iraqis any closer to giving immunity to our Military.

V7_Sport on June 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM

They refused to give that immunity – and he couldn’t force the hand of a sovereign nation.
Maybe he should’ve invaded?
What did he have to lose except for the lives of American troops…right?
/